FleetQ

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are empty, so description carries full disclosure burden. Adds 'semantic store' context and notes 'supabase_provision not available in cloud' constraint. However, fails to mention that 'delete' is destructive/permanent, what 'upload_knowledge' does differently from 'add', or auth/permission requirements for team-scoped memory operations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Efficiently structured with purpose first, followed by action-parameter mapping, ending with constraint note. No redundant fluff. However, the parenthetical parameter lists could benefit from clearer delineation between optional and required fields for each action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex 6-in-1 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal but functional. It covers action existence and parameter mapping, but lacks depth on each action's specific behavior (e.g., what 'stats' returns, how 'upload_knowledge' differs from 'add').

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds significant value by clarifying which parameters belong to which actions (e.g., associating 'query' and 'limit' with 'search', 'memory_id' with 'delete'), effectively documenting the conditional parameter requirements that the schema's flat 'required' array obscures.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb ('Manage') + resource ('team memory'/'semantic store'). Lists all six supported actions with their primary parameters. Distinguishes itself as a 'semantic store' which hints at vector/search behavior, though it could better differentiate from the sibling 'knowledge_manage' tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides implicit usage guidance by mapping actions to their relevant parameters (e.g., 'search (query, limit)', 'add (content, metadata)'), helping agents understand which fields to populate for each action. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'knowledge_manage' or 'agent_manage'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.